From the New York Sun:

"Smokers have already been banned from New York bars and restaurants, and
soon they could be prohibited from lighting up in cars carrying minors, an idea
giving added fuel to critics who say the city has become a nanny state."

My prediction: Smoking will be completely outlawed within ten years.
Full disclosure, I am a smoker. Wish I never started, but I did, and to be honest, I enjoy it. Smoking has been demonized to such an extent, that I feel like a leper when I smoke in public. Seriously, child molesters get less hateful glares. My wife and I vacation in California sometimes, and when I smoke there, I fully expect to be lynched by an angry mob. With torches and everything. I understand that cigarette smoke is unpleasant to non-smokers, and I make an effort to spare people from that in public, just as I make an effort to not fart directly at people. But the bottom line is, when you leave your house, it's not my job to make your day pleasant, nor is it the job of government to make sure you don't get offended outside of your personal sanctuary. Life is offensive, and it should be. Maybe your cologne is offensive to me, but hey, that's your problem, I'm not gonna let it ruin my day, or try to pass legislation against Old Spice.

more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 09:29 AM | Comments (68)
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm going to be away and I don't know if I'll have internet access. Headed for Cape Cod when it's 50 degrees out. Global warming, yay.

The same log and pass should work.

Try to keep posts newsey and not too personal. I really want to stress that because readers hate those kinds of posts. If it's the sort of thing that's really a personal aside, just put it into a comment, please.

Anyway, thanks. This may be the last Open Blog for a while, so get your licks in.

Posted by: Ace at 09:00 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

This only makes complete sense.

President George W. Bush said local communities in Iraq are making progress toward creating a stable democracy faster than the national government.

"An American politician once observed that all politics is local,'' Bush said in his weekly radio address, referring to a comment made by the late House Speaker Thomas ``Tip'' O'Neill, a Massachusetts Democrat.

Niiice quote. Well done.
So true, too. There really can't be a (representative) national government until positions of authority and responsibility are secure at the municipal level.

It's painful to think of all the time and blood spent trying to build a house from the roof down. But at last things are moving in the right direction, to the chagrin of the cut-and-run boobs.

Snippet two: Chemical Ali will probably swing from the gallows within the year.

Three: The almost-unfortunately-named oldest daughter of Saddam Hussein is being sought for extradition to Iraq.

Posted by: LauraW. at 08:03 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

This is almost hard to watch.

Almost.

McCain still trying to paint a positive picture of his campaign yesterday says "the money is coming in OK", and repeats the line about campaigns having their ups and downs.

Then he goes on to express his frustration that his perceived support for Bush and the war in Iraq is the reason he faltered. Hey why not? He's certainly getting help from the media with that.

“It’s entertaining, in that I was the greatest critic of the initial four years, three and a half years,” McCain said. “I came back from my first trip to Iraq and said, ‘This is going to fail. We’ve got to change the strategy’ to the one we’re using now. But life isn’t fair.”

No relationship at all to the Comprehensive Piece of Shit that the whole damned country screamed about for weeks?

Actually, he did acknowledge on Wednesday that immigration reform cost him support (in addition to his position on Iraq), and indicated his willingness to consider the opposing point of view.

"Look, I've got to do what I know is right for this country. These issues I have to take head-on," he said

Well Senator, you're half right. Sometimes life is fair.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 05:46 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

I thought Gabriel Malor, Drew, and Purple Avenger did a good job of keeping it newsey in the Open Blogs, so I asked them to come aboard and do a little coblogging.

I never mentioned that Dave In Texas came aboard too, but I imagine you've noticed that.

I suppose I should say "Give them a warm welcome," but that sounds bossy. How about "Acknowledge them in any way you see fit?" I'll leave it up to you.

Posted by: Ace at 03:05 PM | Comments (94)
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

Extreme Content Warning for this.

He said it was from an HBO special about prison. I'd never heard of it. I imagine 99% of people have only heard of this (if at all) through Chris Rock.

Well, someone (but not "someone") sent me along the actual interview from the documentary.

Chris Rock wasn't exaggerating. In fact, his recounting of this was almost verbatim.

So: below the fold and think very hard about clicking. It's just a guy describing the salad-tossing process, but the description is very graphic.

And if you don't know what "toss the salad" means, then don't click at all. If you stay away from X-rated HBO comedy specials, trust me, this won't be your cup of tea. more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:37 PM | Comments (50)
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

There are two Americas -- and John Edwards is fighting as hard as he can to keep it that way. Gotta keep the riff-raff down, you know.

God Bless 'im.

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards has investing ties to subprime lenders who are foreclosing on victims of Katrina, according to a report published Friday.

The Wall Street Journal said there are 34 homes in New Orleans that face foreclosure from the subprime unit of Fortress Investment Group. Edwards has about $16 million in Fortress (Charts), a hedge fund and private equity manager, the newspaper said.

Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, has been a vocal critic of subprime lenders and told the Journal that he would assist homeowners in New Orleans who face foreclosure from businesses linked to Fortress or who have already lost their homes.

"I intend to help these people," he told the newspaper. The report also said he would divest any Fortress funds in his portfolio that are invested in subprime lenders that filed the foreclosures. "I will not have my family's money invested in these firms," the Journal quoted him as saying.

I'm pretty annoyed at this "divestment" scam. So, you sell your holdings for market value, probably making a profit. Or you take a small loss (or less of a profit) for selling them quickly. You have not changed anything. You've just exchanged $16 million in holdings for $16 million in cash. What has this accomplished?

Supposedly doing this retroactively undoes Edwards' insufferable hypocrisy.

Whatev's. If he wants to atone, instead of just cashing out his $16 million, he should give it all to the people whose homes he's trying to take from them.

Thanks to RickS.

Photoshop courtesy of George.

Posted by: Ace at 01:01 PM | Comments (52)
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.

Don't tell me the original is "great;" it's not and you know it. The plot is corny, the fighting isn't anything to write home about, and John Saxon is John Saxon.

No word on who will fill the Bruce Lee role. Let's just hope they don't repeat the original's disastrous casting decision and choose a Chinese actor.

David Carradine can still kick, from what I understand. And he has a legendary talent for filling roles first intended for Bruce Lee.

Better yet-- Chuck Norris.

Yes, Chuck Norris. There's your star. He's got the skills, he's got the pure charisma and projection, and plus he doesn't look quite as much of a.... well, I don't want to say "savage foreign devil," but, come on, we all want our popcorn movies to end with the good guys winning, and good guys may wear black but they're white by definition.

Thanks to dri.

Saxon, Not Savage: My error. Savage was the guy in the Amateur, right?

Posted by: Ace at 11:16 AM | Comments (84)
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Which corresponds neatly to the 47% approval for Gen. Petraeus. 49% of Americans don't think we're making progress.

It's getting big buzz that a "majority" of Americans don't "trust" Petraeus' report, but what was the actual question?

53 percent of people polled said they suspect that the military assessment of the situation will try to make it sound better than it actually is. Forty-three percent said they do trust the report.

I'm not sure if it's fair to say 53% don't trust the report because they suspect the military will try to spin the situation as better than it really is. Quite frankly, I suspect the military might do that -- come on, play up good news, play down bad news, emphasize the positive? -- and yet I still "trust" the report. Maybe I'll discount it by 10% or so.

I'm not sure that "trusting" the report is the actual opposite of "suspecting" the military offer some minor spin. So long as the spin is minor, the report is essentially true; and yet it still might not be 100% candid. 90% candor is pretty much the most I hope for in contentious situations.

If CNN was really looking for true opposites, a binary distinction between "trust" and "distrust," they should have just used that language. Of course in that case they would have found far fewer people claiming they flat-out disbelieved a report they hadn't even read yet. So instead they ask about non-opposites -- "trust" versus "suspect" the military may spin -- and report support for the latter as being full-on distrust.

The other question that's getting a lot of scrutiny is the finding that 28% say they may be influenced by the report, whereas 72% say they won't be, no matter what it says. But who are those 72%? Surely they cannot all be people who wish to withdraw immediately; no polls claim that that high a percentage of Americans want such a thing. So the 72% would seem to include some hardcore warsupporters as well, who either will not change their mind because they feel the war is simply not one we can afford to lose or else feel they are already fairly well informed on the current state of the surge and so don't imagine a formal report will actually add much to their understanding.

The media -- and non-media people -- seem to be assuming that 28% consists only of war supporters and the 72% consists entirely of war opponents whose mind cannot be changed.

Depends on how literally people answer questions -- something pollsters aren't really able to determine. Sloppy questions which don't ask specifically what you mean to ask cause this confusion. Are the 28% war supporters who are claiming, dishonestly, that their opinions will change, when in fact it is highly unlikely their opinions could change (i.e., they'll continue to support the war no matter what the report says)? Or are the 28% those who are neither war supporters nor war opponents who are answering honestly when they say their minds could be changed -- and are hence the swing opinion on the subject?

We don't know. It is incorrect, however, by the express terms of the poll, to assume that 28% support the war but might change their minds if Petraeus delivers a negative report, whereas 72% oppose the war and cannot be swayed even by a very positive report from Petraeus. And yet that seems to be how people are reading the poll. Despite the fact the question says nothing of the sort.

Should Have Read the Poll! Geoff says--

The actual poll tells us that of the 72% who say that his report won't influence their thinking, 21% are war supporters.

So, assuming the best, that means that 49% could possibly end up supporting the war after the report (21% who support the war and whose minds cannot be changed and 28% whose minds can be changed.... they say).

Posted by: Ace at 11:07 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 678 words, total size 4 kb.

They both do, unfortunately. Though Romney certainly has more ammunition: while Romney gets rapped for not taking steps to end the sanctuary city policy existing in several Massachusetts towns, Giuliani has to answer for affirmatively promoting and defending the sanctuary city policy he himself set as mayor.

Giuliani is killing his chances with his idiotic determination to never admit he's changed his policies while also claiming that his policies as President wouldn't be the same as his policies as mayor (not the same -- and yet not different!).

Well, it's one or the other, Mayor. If you really do mean it that you haven't changed your policies, I can't support you for president, and neither can many other conservatives.

Meanwhile, in News of the Stupid, Giuliani is attacked for his kids' support of other candidates.

Apparently he lacks the sort of support Ronald Reagan got from Ron Reagan, Jr.

Posted by: Ace at 10:21 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.